9
   

America... Spying on Americans

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:02 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people think this is a grade school playground where everybody plays nice. They have never grown up to debate like adults; they go crying to momma as soon as their feelings are hurt.


Name-calling and rudeness aren't part of "adult debating".
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jan, 2006 09:05 pm
JustWonders wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people think this is a grade school playground where everybody plays nice. They have never grown up to debate like adults; they go crying to momma as soon as their feelings are hurt.


Name-calling and rudeness aren't part of "adult debating".

I'm with you JustWonders. I'd just ignore him. He ignores me. Actually, he ignores plenty of challenges himself. So........... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:24 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, We're not talking about Clinton any more. He's past history, and impeachment was thrown out. Nixon is also gone, so trying to compare his potential impeachment with Bush is also assinine.

Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.

We're talking about the current president.


I know that Clinton is history.
I was more wondering if you were going to be consistant.
Using your statement that..."When any president lies and breaks the law, he should be impeached and thrown out of office",I was wondering if you supported his impeachment.After all,he DID lie.

Now,you are saying that its the degree of lying.
Why is that?
A lie is a lie,isnt it?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 01:28 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
I'm a child of 70. Attack my thesis, not me, before you go spouting about how I address nincompoops on a2k.

Yes, everybody is entitled to their opinion; but they don't get a free ride if their thesis is so screwed up, it tells us nothing but babble.

If you wish to defend mm, tell us why comparing Bush's crime of wiretapping American citizens by ignoring FISA to Clinton's sexual encounter has any relevance.


Because you claim that Bush lied.
And because Clinton ADMITTED to lying.
And because YOU said..."When any president lies and breaks the law, he should be impeached and thrown out of office".


So,is lying about some things ok,or is it lying in general?
I am trying to find out what you think its ok for the president to lie about,or if its lying in general that should be an impeachable offense.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 02:39 am
Momma Angel wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, We're not talking about Clinton any more. He's past history, and impeachment was thrown out. Nixon is also gone, so trying to compare his potential impeachment with Bush is also assinine.

Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.

We're talking about the current president.


What happened to the guilt by association theory, C.I.? It doesn't apply to past presidents? I mean, afterall, these men did CHOOSE to run for President, didn't they? According to what you have said before regarding guilt by association, would it fit here?

I have always heard, if a man will lie about one thing, he'll lie about anything. So, what's the difference between Clinton and Bush in your determination?


The topic of this thread concern's BUSH'S domestic surveillance of United States persons without a court order. We have engaged in discussion since BUSH'S secret activity was exposed. We've exceeded 150 pages of discussion.

It is clear that Momma Angel's sudden appearance in this thread has nothing to do with the topic. Indeed, if she was truly interested in the subject matter, she would have entered the thread and joined the discussion long before we hit page 150. It is clear that MA made her sudden appearance solely because she has a bone to pick with cicerone imposter.

MA, if you want to join our discussion in a constructive manner, you're most welcome. However, if you're simply following C.I. around so you can wage a petty war with with him--please take your pettiness elsewhere. Please don't derail the thread. The same goes for your follower, JustWonders.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 02:43 am
Actually, Debra Law, I have been following this topic pretty much from the beginning. I may not have posted true, but it's because I didn't have any questions to ask as of yet.

I am not waging war with anyone. And, BTW, I don't even know who JustWonders is. Was just commenting on a comment.

I apologize if you felt I was getting off topic. I really thought my question was valid.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 02:43 am
JustWonders wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people think this is a grade school playground where everybody plays nice. They have never grown up to debate like adults; they go crying to momma as soon as their feelings are hurt.


Name-calling and rudeness aren't part of "adult debating".


It isn't exactly "adult" of you to follow C.I. into this thread and derail our discussion simply because you have some petty bone to pick. Take it elsewhere. You might not be interested in this topic, but I am. Let's stay on topic.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 06:54 am
c.i. isn't staying on topic when he decides to belittle posters who disagree with him. Suggesting that any who hold a different opinion are "ignorant" adds nothing to debate.

I think it's entirely appropriate to point this out if he continues to disregard the protocol for this forum:

Quote:
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:08 am
What is the difference between calling someone an idiot and calling people the loony left or words to that effect when they express an opinion which differs from the 'rights' talking points?

people that live in glass houses...

(I have most post concerning the topic)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:17 am
Quote:
As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:19 am
cicerone imposter wrote:


Your inability to compare a personal sexual indiscretion with a lying president that performs illegal wiretaps on American citizens is telling of your ignorance and ability at logic or common sense. Give up before you make yourself a fool.

We're talking about the current president.


For one thing, Clinton was not impeached for a "personal sexual indiscretion". Clinton was and is basically a psychopath with real psychiatric issues even for a psychopath, and his idea of playing political hardball is basically indistinguishable from what most people call gangsterism. Things like chinagate, the dog-wagging episodes, travelgate, using the IRS as an instrument of political vendetta, or having demokkkrat operatives kill Kathleen Wiley's cat and tell her her kids could be next are gangland practices.

A republican leader who didn't have to fear handing the country over to Al Gore with a year left on Slick's second term might have held public hearings and had one of Kathleen Willey's little kids stand there in front of the whole country and ask "Why did Mister Slick have to kill Fluffy to try to scare my mommy??" I mean, that's b asically what I'd have done AFTER I heaved Algor for his part in chicom/budhist temple fundraising...

I mean, Algor was certainly guilty of more than Spiro Agnew ever was and that's what happened to Spiro Agnew.

If you've never read Edith Efron's analysis of Slick Clinton's problems, you ought to:

http://reason.com/9411/fe.efron.9411.shtml

As to George W. Bush, recent polls indicate that 65% of Americans fully approve of him authorizing the NSA to do whatever it takes to keep the lid down on AlQuaeda. The people who perpetrated 9-11 had been living amongst us for a number of years, and you'd think that somebody in the muslim community who cared more for America than for islammacism might have ratted them out in that much time. Given that did not happen and given that the only plausible alternative to what has actually happened would likely have been rounding up ALL american muslims either into ships headed outwards or into barbed-wire enclosures, I simply have no problems whatsoever with the high-tech solutions.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:37 am
New poll with the words wiretaping without a warrant included.

Quote:
WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to get court approval before eavesdropping on people inside the United States, even if those calls might involve suspected terrorists, an AP-Ipsos poll shows.


Over the past three weeks, President Bush and top aides have defended the electronic monitoring program they secretly launched shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, as a vital tool to protect the nation from al-Qaida and its affiliates.

Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism.

Agreeing with the White House, some 42 percent of those surveyed do not believe the court approval is necessary.

"We're at war," Bush said during a New Year's Day visit to San Antonio. "And as commander in chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. ... It's a vital, necessary program."

According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.

Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.

Cynthia Ice-Bones, 32, a Republican from Sacramento, Calif., said knowing about the program made her feel a bit safer. "I think our security is so important that we don't need warrants. If you're doing something we shouldn't be doing, then you ought to be caught," she said.

But Peter Ahr of Caldwell, N.J., a religious studies professor at Seton Hall University, said he could not find a justification for skipping judicial approvals. Nor did he believe the administration's argument that such a step would impair terrorism investigations.

"We're a nation of laws. ... That means that everybody has to live by the law, including the administration," said Ahr, 64, a Democrat who argues for checks and balances. "For the administration to simply go after wiretaps on their own without anyone else's say-so is a violation of that principle."

The eavesdropping is run by the secretive National Security Agency, the government's code-makers and code-breakers.

Charles Franklin, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said most people think that the eavesdropping is aimed at foreign terrorists, even when the surveillance is conducted inside the country.

"They are willing to give the president quite a lot of leeway on this when it comes to the war on terror," said Franklin, who closely follows public opinion.

Some members of Congress have raised concerns about the president's actions, but none of those lawmakers who have been briefed on the program has called for its immediate halt.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, GOP Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, has promised hearings this year. Five members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, have called for immediate inquiries.

On top of that, a memorandum circulated Friday from two legal analysts at the Congressional Research Service concluded that the justification for the monitoring may not be as strong as the administration has argued.

The NSA's activity "may present an exercise of presidential power at its lowest ebb," the 44-page memo said.

Bush based his eavesdropping orders on his presidential powers under the Constitution and a September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use military force in the fight against terrorism.

The administration says the program is reviewed every 45 days and that Bush personally reauthorizes it. His top legal advisers argue its justification is sound.

The issue is full of grays for some people interviewed for the poll, including homebuilder Harlon Bennett, 21, a political independent from Wellston, Okla. He does not think the government should need warrants for suspected terrorists.

"Of course," he added, "we all could be suspected terrorists."


source
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 07:47 am
One of the things you have to keep in mind regarding 9-11 is that a sizeable number of muslims living in and around NY and NJ seem to have known that something largescale was afoot, and none of them said anything. There's at least one clearcut story of a Pakistani kid attending the Utrecht highschool in Brooklyn who knew that the trade towers were involved a week aforehand, and if you do a google search on 'utrecht', 'highschool', and '9-11', you can take your pick of versions of the story to read:

http://www.google.com/search?q=utrecht++highschool++9-11&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Like I say, given all of that, I simply don't care what George has to do to deal with it and I don't think many Americans do.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:00 am
guys...this is an important question. Request that the fellow who just posted be completely ignored. And enough pissing.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:04 am
blatham wrote:
guys...this is an important question. Request that the fellow who just posted be completely ignored. And enough pissing.


Why??
I thought that dissenting opinions were welcome here.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:06 am
blatham wrote:
guys...this is an important question. Request that the fellow who just posted be completely ignored. And enough pissing.


Gungasnake and Mysteryman ...

What do you expect B. ???

Anon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:14 am
Anon-Voter wrote:
blatham wrote:
guys...this is an important question. Request that the fellow who just posted be completely ignored. And enough pissing.


Gungasnake and Mysteryman ...

What do you expect B. ???

Anon


Seems to me that you fear those that disagree with you,and anon,you and I have gone round with eah other before,and you know I wont back down from you.
So,do you fear my opinions,or are you just bigoted towards everyone that isnt like you?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:23 am
Just bigoted against stupidity and ignorance. If you feel you qualify, feel free to include yourself. Nope, I just consider the source, especially in your case!! Gunga is funny, you can rarely get entertainment like it! There are words for you, but I'm not allowed to say them here, so I will respect the TOS and not say them!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:34 am
you know sometimes I wonder if society wouldn't be better of if we required that people be sterialized before marrying their sister.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:34 am
mysteryman wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
blatham wrote:
guys...this is an important question. Request that the fellow who just posted be completely ignored. And enough pissing.


Gungasnake and Mysteryman ...

What do you expect B. ???

Anon


Seems to me that you fear those that disagree with you,and anon,you and I have gone round with eah other before,and you know I wont back down from you.
So,do you fear my opinions,or are you just bigoted towards everyone that isnt like you?


you know mysterman your last remarks are real bull$hit. for the past several years right wing conservatives, starting with cheney have accused those who oppose them of treasonous behavior. right wing mouthpieces have even attacked the media for such behavior whenever the latter have revealed bushevik fukkups in intel, domestic or foreign policies.

it was not a democrat who stood in the well of the House and accused a democratic party house rep., marine combat vet of cowardice for stating his opinion US troops need to begin their exit from iraq.

remind yourself again that George Bush is not the state, and voiced objections to the leader is not tantamount to treason. to equate a leader with the state is EXACTLY what the Germans did with Adolf Hitler and German state.

Personally I do not object to you or any other ignorant, right wing ideologue expressing yourselves. i hope you post your remarks, because the more you do, the more reasonable people will see you guys are full of $hit.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 02/27/2025 at 10:08:08